Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Wetman88
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a request for adminship that did not succeed. Please do not modify it.
Final (0/6/0); ended 02:52, 3 April 2009 (UTC) by non-bureaucrat Neurolysis per NOTNOW
Nomination
[edit]Wetman88 (talk · contribs) – Hi, I would like to be an administrator so that I can delete bad pages. I have not been blocked recently, and I have been doing a good job. Wetman88 (talk) 01:41, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Questions for the candidate
[edit]Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. It is recommended that you answer these optional questions to provide guidance for participants:
- 1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?
- A: Deleting the bad pages that do not belong on Wikipedia.
- 2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
- A: The Twenty Years Crisis. It is a very good article.
- 3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
- A: Yea, I got blocked for "disruptive editing". It was all just a misunderstanding, so I apologized and people eventually gave me back my account.
General comments
[edit]- Links for Wetman88: Wetman88 (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
- Edit summary usage for Wetman88 can be found here.
- Promote Wetman88
Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Wetman88 before commenting.
Discussion
[edit]- For those that prefer them:
- Withdrawal strongly recommended at this time per WP:NOTNOW. iMatthew : Chat 01:52, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support
[edit]#:Support. I am a good guy. Wetman88 (talk) 01:46, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
#:Support, my search of the talk page and contribs turned up nothing of concern. Tavix : Chat 01:23, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
[reply]
- Removing forged !vote. — neuro(talk)(review) 02:43, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Other than, well... this. Tiptoety talk 02:06, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
#:Support No problems here. Good luck! Pastor Theo (talk) 01:33, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Fraud Hey, I didn't !vote for this person -- he forged my !vote and other !votes: [1] and [2]. Pastor Theo (talk) 02:41, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This user has just been blocked from editing half a month ago, which is cause for concern... -download | sign! 02:10, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
#:Support Obviously a sensible, dedicated editor here for the encyclopedia, not the drama. Nick mallory (talk) 02:02, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Removing forged !vote. — neuro(talk)(review) 02:43, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
[edit]- Thank you for submitting your RFA. While I applaud enthusiasm, I'm afraid you do not yet possess sufficient knowledge and experience for the community to have confidence in your readiness to become an admin. But that does not mean that we will never have confidence in you.
- Generally, It has been my experience that it takes at least 3,000 edits in a variety of areas to learn policy and guidelines well enough to attempt adminship. Nominees need to show the ability to contribute a number of significant edits to build the encyclopedia.
- The Admin tools allow the user to block and unblock other editors, delete and undelete pages and protect and unprotect pages. Nominees will therefore do well to gain experience and familiarity with such areas as WP:AIV, WP:AFD, WP:CSD, Wikipedia:Protection policy, and WP:BLOCK to learn when to do these things.
- Adminship inevitably leads one to 1) need to explain clearly the reasons for one's decisions, 2) need to review one's decisions and change one's mind when it is reasonable to do so, 3) need to review one's decisions and stand firm when it is reasonable to do so, 4) need to negotiate a compromise. Admins need a familiarity with dispute resolution. The ability to communicate clearly is essential.
- Article building is the raison d'être of Wikipedia. I recommend significant participation in WP:GA or WP:FA as the surest way to gain article building experience.
- My suggestion would be to withdraw and try again in another 3 months and 3000 edits. Many nominees have found it helpful to obtain an Editor Review or to receive Admin coaching before submitting their RfA and after passing that benchmark. Hope this helps. Good luck and happy editing. Xclamation point 01:45, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Generally, It has been my experience that it takes at least 3,000 edits in a variety of areas to learn policy and guidelines well enough to attempt adminship. Nominees need to show the ability to contribute a number of significant edits to build the encyclopedia.
- Oppose Sorry, but you are not yet ready for adminship. I would recommend making more contributions to different areas of Wikipedia, and giving it at least a few months. -download | sign! 01:46, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose - Sorry, but your recent blocks are cause for concern. –Juliancolton | Talk 02:01, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- They are not that recent. Wetman88 (talk) 02:13, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- They were two weeks ago. –Juliancolton | Talk 02:15, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Exactly. Wetman88 (talk) 02:18, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, it has been my experience that it generally takes over 5000 edits and over half a year with substantial contributions and no blocks for an RfA to succeed. -download | sign! 02:23, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Most people haven't been blocked so they don't understand about blocking. I have so it's a plus. Wetman88 (talk) 02:24, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, it has been my experience that it generally takes over 5000 edits and over half a year with substantial contributions and no blocks for an RfA to succeed. -download | sign! 02:23, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Exactly. Wetman88 (talk) 02:18, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- They were two weeks ago. –Juliancolton | Talk 02:15, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- They are not that recent. Wetman88 (talk) 02:13, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose - Sorry, only three weeks editing experience and being blocked during that time leads me to believe you need quite a bit more time and involvement in the project. I hope to be able to support a future nomination. Camw (talk) 02:23, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Strongest Possible Oppose For forging the input in the Support section. Pastor Theo (talk) 02:45, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Oppose - Forging votes is unacceptable. J.delanoygabsadds 02:51, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
[edit]- The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.